zondag 11 juni 2017

BDI and PRS, theory and practice

The NLI system CALO I am examining uses a BDI system (named SPARK) that is a successor to SRI's PRS. In order to understand, and because PRS is historically significant, it's worth the study.


A BDI system has its philosophical roots in the Belief Desire Intention theory of Michael E. Bratman. In this theory on human rationality, formulated in the eighties, he proposes a third mental attitude, next to Beliefs and Desires, namely Intentions. It's laid down in his book Intention, Plans, and Practical Reason (= IPPR)

BDI systems are attractive because of their ability to adapt their plans to new circumstances. Since they are rational agents, their behavior is rational and one can inspect their course of action to find out why each decision was made.

Michael E. Bratman

It's very important to get the concepts straight, so I will try some definitions myself. The most important concepts are Belief, Desire, Intention, Goal, Plan, and Action. Since this theory is about humans, the concepts should be expressed in human terms, not in computational terms.


A belief is a bit of information about something, hold true by the person. It may be information about the world or about the person itself. It is different from a fact in that it isn't necessarily really true, it is just hold as true by the person.

Inference-type beliefs can be used to form plans.

  • it rains
  • I am cold
  • bus line 4 will get me from home to Tanner Library
  • the use of my computer will heat up the room


A desire is a future state that the person wants to achieve. The desire itself can exist without the intent of actually executing it, there may not even be a plan or possibility to bring it about. Where I said "want" Bratman prefers the term "pro-attitude", a container that includes wanting, judging desirable, caring about, and others. (The future state is occasionally referred to as the goal.)

  • to go to Tanner Library
  • a milkshake for lunch
  • find the best price
  • go to the party
  • become rich

Conflicting Desires: Choice

Desires can be conflicting. The desire to drink milkshake conflicts with the desire to loose weight, for example. Or two desirable events take place at the same time. The person needs to choose between these desires.


An intention is the possible practical consequence of a desire. It is also a future state that the person wants to achieve, but the difference with desire is that the intention involves a commitment and a plan. The commitment implies that, barring interventions, the intention will be realized. The plan is simply a prerequisite to achieve it. The intention controls the execution of the plan, every step of the way. [IPPR, p16] An intention also has inertia, which means that that one intention won't just be dropped for the next one. It strives for the plan to be executed to completion.

  • to take bus line 4 from home to Tanner Library


A plan is the means by which an intention is executed. A plan is not just a general recipe, a scheme, or a procedure, but a concrete sequence of steps adapted to the specific circumstances at hand. A plan inherits the characteristics commitment and inertia from its intention. The plan may be partial, or incomplete. Plans are hierarchical. A plan consists of steps and subplans. [IPPR, p29]

  • take bus (line 4, from home, to Tanner) => go to the bus stop, enter the bus, pay the conductor, have a seat, get out at the nearest bus stop to the target, walk to the target


Planning is the process of taking some inference rules and plan schemes, and turning this into a plan. But there's a catch. Plans must be consistent, there must be no contradictions between one plan and another, nor between a plan and some belief.

  • I need a means to go to Tanner. This can be by bus or by car. But I am already planning to leave my car at home for Susan to use. [IPPR, p33]

Expected Side Effects

Side effects are the results of the actions following the intention, that are not part of the intention per sé. Some of these were purely accidental, some were expected. These side effects may well be undesirable for the person. When planning, a person needs to take into account that the side effects do not conflict with his desires (or that of other agents).


The term Goal does not have a special position in IPPR. It is not named in the first chapters. And when it occurs, in chapter 9, when dealing with other frameworks, it just refers to the object of desire, [IPPR, p131] or as an alias for desire [IPPR, p33].


PRS is the first implementation of BDI. It was written by Michael Georgeff, Amy L. Lansky,  François Félix Ingrand, and others at SRI. It was used for fault diagnosis on the Space Shuttle. I was interested in how it worked and I found a very clear document, Procedural Reasoning System, User's Guide, A Manual for Version 2.0. There's also a paper that appears to be the original document on PRS: Reactive Reasoning and Planning, which is exceptionally clear. I will use the naming from that early paper.

Amy L. Lansky and Michael Georgeff

PRS explicitly represents its goals, plans and actions. It is a reactive planner. It creates partial plans and is able to change them if new input comes in. But let's see how it implements the ideas of Bratman: BDI.


Beliefs are implemented as a database of state descriptions. Some beliefs are built-in. Others are derived by PRS in the course of action: observations and conclusions from these observations.

Procedural knowledge (which is a belief is BDI)  is implemented as KA (for Knowledge Area, a plan schema).


Desires are called goals. Goals do not represent static world states, but rather desired behaviors. Goals are collected on the goal stack.


Intentions are implemented as a process stack of active KAs.


Plans are called Active KAs, and this probably needs some explanation. Whereas Bratman focused on plans as active mental states, the focus of PRS is in the declarative definition of the procedures. This leads to the following mapping:


  • procedural belief -> KA / procedure
  • plan -> Active KA
The body of a KA consists of sequences of subgoals to be achieved. A KA also has an invocation condition, a logical expression that describes under which conditions it is useful.


PRS contains a large amount of procedural knowledge. This is knowledge in the form: to do A, follow steps B, C, and D. In such a procedure each of the steps can itself be a subgoal that will in turn need other procedures. This procedural knowledge is stored in KAs (Knowledge Areas). KAs are hierarchical, partial plan schemas.

Each goal is executed by applying one KA to the variables of the goal. Thus, an applied KA is formed.

PRS' System Interpreter only expands a subgoal of an active KA when it is the active step. It does not plan ahead. It does not start expanding subgoals in order to make the plan more complete. And because it does not plan ahead, it does not need to adjust its plans given changing circumstances.

Sometimes planning ahead is necessary, of course. When planning a route, for example. PRS does not use its central planning system to plan ahead. For the route planner, a KA has been that essentially consists of these steps
  • create a route-plan from here to T (and place it in the database)
  • convert the route-plan in a sequence of subgoals
  • execute the next subgoal (one subgoal at a time) until it is done

Expected Side Effects

The side effects of the KAs must be considered by their designer.

The System Interpreter

The interpreter "runs the entire system". Each cycle it performs these tasks:
  • selection of a new KA, based on goals and beliefs, and placing it on the process stack
  • executing the next KA from the process stack
Executing a KA causes
  • the creation of new beliefs (added to the database)
  • the creation of new subgoals (added to the process stack)
  • the creation of new goals (added to the goal stack) 

Final Words

BDI is cool and PRS is fascinating. 

Note: planning ahead and plan execution are two different things. Some tasks require some planning ahead, like making a reservation. An agent must plan ahead while it is executing this plan and other plans. The two tasks are done by different subsystems of the agent.

Bratman does not deal with the priorities of desires in IPPR. Priorities may be assigned to intentions in PRS, however.

Geen opmerkingen:

Een reactie posten

Natural language interaction in flowcharts

Flowchart In this post I will sketch some of my ideas about a generic natural language interaction program in the form of a flowchart. N...